In re Marriage of Hyman

Full Case Summary

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Hyman

Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District
Case Citation: 2024 IL App (2d) 230352
Date Filed: December 24, 2024

Overview: Rachel D. Hyman appeals multiple decisions of the Circuit Court of Lake County over her attorney fees and related relief in dissolving her marriage to Jeffrey R. Hyman. Their 2015 divorce settlement provided for dividing undisclosed marital assets (like undisclosed stock options). Rachel claimed Jeffrey failed to disclose certain options, eventually owing her $130,196 after taxes. That judgment was upheld on appeal. Later, Rachel petitioned for attorney fees, leading to partial awards but mostly denials, culminating in this further appeal.

Fee Petitions

Rachel filed an “Amended Petition for Attorney’s Fees and Costs” for ~$56,755, plus a “Petition for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Incurred for Defense of Appeal” for ~$24,833.91 under 508(a)(3) and 508(b). The trial court denied fees under 508(a), saying Rachel didn’t show inability to pay, and rejected the appellate fee request entirely. It awarded $10,000 under 508(b), finding Jeffrey’s noncompliance was unjustified but capping fees without explanation.

Appeal Claims

Rachel contends $10k was too low, the appellate fee denial was erroneous, and she was wrongly denied post-judgment interest. She cites Section 508(b)’s mandatory fee provision when a party has no cause for noncompliance. Also, section 2-1303 mandates 9% interest from the judgment date, which the court refused to impose.

Court’s Analysis

1. Section 508(b): The appellate court concluded fees are mandatory if a party fails to comply without good cause. The trial court incorrectly used discretion in awarding only $10k. It should reevaluate a “reasonable” fee and ensure no partial denial contradicts the mandatory language.
2. Appellate Fees: The court likewise found the trial court gave no valid reason for completely denying them if the same noncompliance remained at issue on appeal.
3. Postjudgment Interest: The court recognized that judgments typically accrue 9% interest from the date entered. The trial court erred by not applying interest under 2-1303. The money owed to Rachel was a final money judgment, so interest attaches automatically.

Conclusion

The appellate court vacated and remanded the prior orders on Rachel’s fee petitions, directing a new hearing on both. It also vacated the denial of interest, instructing the trial court to apply 9% interest dating from February 2, 2022. Thus, the matter was remanded with directions consistent with mandatory fee and interest provisions.